Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

How many times is a double dip justified in this draft?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How many times should packers double dip in
one
40%
 40%  [ 6 ]
two
40%
 40%  [ 6 ]
three
20%
 20%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 15

Author Message
Arodsmightybelt


Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 3899
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:03 am    Post subject: How many times is a double dip justified in this draft? Reply with quote

I would not be surprised at all if we did multiple double dips this draft given the number of bodies we lost and given the performance of some players we were hoping would step up this year.

1) RB: seems like a foregone conclusion given the TT quote, its just a question of what rounds we do it in, and I agree with that. Deep class and I would not at all mind a day 1 or 2 RB coupled with a day 3 guy.

2) G: IMO I don't think we only need to find a starting RG this draft, but we gotta find a guy as a backup too. We got a pleasant surprise finding our left guard solution already on the roster, that's kinda playing with fire to assume a UDFA can do it again. The plus is mid round guards are a Ted specialty, and I think we should take advantage of it. Seriously would consider rounds 3-5 for two guards in that area.

3. CB: Im torn on this with the signing of House, but we still should give it a look given how diabolically bad we were at the position last season. Again, this should probably be a day 1 or 2 and then a day 3 pick.

4. OLB: Given how often Perry and Matthews are on the sideline, we need at least one body, but might we need two? I think I go against a double dip at edge. We need one body there for sure though to be secure.

I know the board is fluid, but as an "ish" should we be shooting for something like this?

1. BPA at RB/CB/Edge
2. BPA at RB/CB/Edge
3. Guard
4. Corner
5. Guard
5b. RB
6. BPA at RB/CB/Edge that wasn't addressed earlier
7. Punter (schum doesn't do it for me)

I guess the easy answer is "as many times as it needs to". That could eat up all our draft picks, but I think given the bodies we lost, that's a reality we need to accept. Thoughts?
_________________
Cutler Cutlering. Its so beautiful - Bears Are Legit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 12000
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It depends too much on value.

None of them are NEEDED. One decent player at each position would be nice but bodies for camp can be added as UFA.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Jaegybomb


Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 154
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Needs feel more spread out than usual. This could be the year we do 0.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank-O


Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 2238
Location: Wisconsin - Cheeseland
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given how often Matthews and Perry are injured, seemingly every year, EDGE better be very high on everyone's list. That's my #1 need. Then again I'm not sold on Fackrell like some may be.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IrishGreen


Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 40714
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB is the only position I think we need to take a couple of guys (including a high pick).


Still want Peterson, so I'd be happy with one 3-6 rd RB in this deep RB class. Only think we need one G/T. Always can use more pass rush.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vegas492


Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Posts: 1444
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think you double dip at RB this year. Grab one and grab one or two UDFA's. There will be good backs that go undrafted.

I think you do double dip at corner. Maybe even OLB.

I'd like a corner round one, lets just say King or Conley.
I'd like an edge rusher in round 2, let's say Lawson, Rivers or Bowser.

After that, it is game on. I can see where another corner or another OLB could be BPA. I'm really liking Biegle later in the draft as a possible double dipper.
_________________
From my perspective, and I don't know if Brett would say this [publicly] -- I know he's shared with me -- we would not be nearly as appreciative of everything that the Packers are had we not seen it from the other side," ---Ryan Longwell 2016
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11410
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
It depends too much on value.

None of them are NEEDED. One decent player at each position would be nice but bodies for camp can be added as UFA.


This. I don't think we go into this draft saying we need 2 of any one position. But the way the draft will shake out means we end up with two RBs, two CBs, or two OL.

My dream, ideal scenario is: (1) premium pick (day 1/2) on both CB and EDGE (King, Wilson, Conley, Humphrey; Bowser); (2) two offensive playmakers with sub 4.55 speed (Mack, Jones, etc); and (3) at least three players over 295 pounds.

If we come out with the above, I'm thrilled.
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 14642
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just curious - why did you not put in the option of zero in your poll? I don't think Ted will double dip this year.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HorizontoZenith


Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Posts: 4487
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it makes zero sense to double dip at RB in most years, much less this year. Only one of them is going to be on the field at a time, so unless you're going into a season with only one potential RB and/or you're planning on consistently running the ball 30 times a game, it's pointless.

The Packers have averaged 26 rush attempts per game since Aaron has been our starter. There hasn't been a single season he's been our starter in which we averaged more than 28 rush attempts per game. That's not going to change next year no matter which running back we have, especially considering we didn't run the ball a lot even at the height of Lacy's effectiveness.

I'll be waiting for somebody to say, "But derp a derp, we don't run because we don't have a running back." And then I'll have to respond with, "We never ranked higher than 12th in rush attempts even when Lacy was at the height of his effectiveness and Starks was an effective #2," and then I'll also have to point out that we were 26h in rush attempts in 2011 when we had a historically good offense. And then I'll have to remind everyone that we're built to be a passing team and that double dipping at RB would give us four players to vie for three roster spots, and that one of them wouldn't be any better an option than Christine Michael.

A running back makes sense for this team, but certainly not a first round running back, and certainly not one that's going to offer the same skillset we already have. If we draft a RB, it needs to be one that can take the 20 carries a game for the times we actually do that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arodsmightybelt


Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 3899
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pugger wrote:
Just curious - why did you not put in the option of zero in your poll? I don't think Ted will double dip this year.


didn't think of it, should have, my bad. I just thought with the TT RB quote it would be implied its highly likely at least once.

I just feel this free agency departure list has left our cupboard unusually barren. Because of Lacy, Datone, Hyde, Lang, Shields, Starks, Tretter, departing to free agency/retirement/being cut, I think a convincing argument could be made that this is the most important packers draft since the 2006 draft. Ted needs to HIT on multiple positions to restock what we have lost. We could conceivably have rookies starting for us at RG, RB, CB and a edge guy who features heavily in the rotation. Given how often we have offensive lineman go down, Guard draftee #2 could get a lot of snaps too, because PackIRs. So could RB draftee #2 for the same reason (assuming TT not BSing about wanting to add 2 rbs)
_________________
Cutler Cutlering. Its so beautiful - Bears Are Legit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smetana34


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 4163
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HorizontoZenith wrote:
I think it makes zero sense to double dip at RB in most years, much less this year. Only one of them is going to be on the field at a time, so unless you're going into a season with only one potential RB and/or you're planning on consistently running the ball 30 times a game, it's pointless.

The Packers have averaged 26 rush attempts per game since Aaron has been our starter. There hasn't been a single season he's been our starter in which we averaged more than 28 rush attempts per game. That's not going to change next year no matter which running back we have, especially considering we didn't run the ball a lot even at the height of Lacy's effectiveness.

I'll be waiting for somebody to say, "But derp a derp, we don't run because we don't have a running back." And then I'll have to respond with, "We never ranked higher than 12th in rush attempts even when Lacy was at the height of his effectiveness and Starks was an effective #2," and then I'll also have to point out that we were 26h in rush attempts in 2011 when we had a historically good offense. And then I'll have to remind everyone that we're built to be a passing team and that double dipping at RB would give us four players to vie for three roster spots, and that one of them wouldn't be any better an option than Christine Michael.

A running back makes sense for this team, but certainly not a first round running back, and certainly not one that's going to offer the same skillset we already have. If we draft a RB, it needs to be one that can take the 20 carries a game for the times we actually do that.


Are we convinced Montgomery is staying at RB? With Cobb being ineffective, Adams needing a new contract, and Nelson aging, it wouldn't surprise me to see the FO double dip RB's to get Montgomery back in a WR role to provide insurance.

Having said that, I don't think we will double dip. Drafting one, and grabbing one as a UDFA seems to be the likely route with many talented players surely to be available.
_________________
Uncle Buck wrote:

Uncle Buck: "I'm expecting Kate Beckinsale to dump her husband and run away with me."
incognito_man wrote:

you probably have better odds of running off with Tebow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jaegybomb


Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 154
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montgomery has too good of vision as a RB to move him back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank-O


Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 2238
Location: Wisconsin - Cheeseland
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

smetana34 wrote:
HorizontoZenith wrote:
I think it makes zero sense to double dip at RB in most years, much less this year. Only one of them is going to be on the field at a time, so unless you're going into a season with only one potential RB and/or you're planning on consistently running the ball 30 times a game, it's pointless.

The Packers have averaged 26 rush attempts per game since Aaron has been our starter. There hasn't been a single season he's been our starter in which we averaged more than 28 rush attempts per game. That's not going to change next year no matter which running back we have, especially considering we didn't run the ball a lot even at the height of Lacy's effectiveness.

I'll be waiting for somebody to say, "But derp a derp, we don't run because we don't have a running back." And then I'll have to respond with, "We never ranked higher than 12th in rush attempts even when Lacy was at the height of his effectiveness and Starks was an effective #2," and then I'll also have to point out that we were 26h in rush attempts in 2011 when we had a historically good offense. And then I'll have to remind everyone that we're built to be a passing team and that double dipping at RB would give us four players to vie for three roster spots, and that one of them wouldn't be any better an option than Christine Michael.

A running back makes sense for this team, but certainly not a first round running back, and certainly not one that's going to offer the same skillset we already have. If we draft a RB, it needs to be one that can take the 20 carries a game for the times we actually do that.


Are we convinced Montgomery is staying at RB? With Cobb being ineffective, Adams needing a new contract, and Nelson aging, it wouldn't surprise me to see the FO double dip RB's to get Montgomery back in a WR role to provide insurance.

Having said that, I don't think we will double dip. Drafting one, and grabbing one as a UDFA seems to be the likely route with many talented players surely to be available.

I am. I'm also convinced that we'll see some production out of Michael aswell, people keep writing him off but I really believe a full offseason will help him out a ton.

When Cobb and Nelson are firing on all cylinders they're arguably one of the better duos in the league, add in a damn good WR in Adams (who I think we'll extend this season) and the emergence of G-Mo and talent of Davis... I think a double dip would be overkill, but I wouldn't be opposed drafting one in the 2nd or later if the value is there!

Have to keep in mind we have 3 viable options at TE now, something we've never had here in GB.
_________________


Last edited by Frank-O on Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17375
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

smetana34 wrote:
HorizontoZenith wrote:
I think it makes zero sense to double dip at RB in most years, much less this year. Only one of them is going to be on the field at a time, so unless you're going into a season with only one potential RB and/or you're planning on consistently running the ball 30 times a game, it's pointless.

The Packers have averaged 26 rush attempts per game since Aaron has been our starter. There hasn't been a single season he's been our starter in which we averaged more than 28 rush attempts per game. That's not going to change next year no matter which running back we have, especially considering we didn't run the ball a lot even at the height of Lacy's effectiveness.

I'll be waiting for somebody to say, "But derp a derp, we don't run because we don't have a running back." And then I'll have to respond with, "We never ranked higher than 12th in rush attempts even when Lacy was at the height of his effectiveness and Starks was an effective #2," and then I'll also have to point out that we were 26h in rush attempts in 2011 when we had a historically good offense. And then I'll have to remind everyone that we're built to be a passing team and that double dipping at RB would give us four players to vie for three roster spots, and that one of them wouldn't be any better an option than Christine Michael.

A running back makes sense for this team, but certainly not a first round running back, and certainly not one that's going to offer the same skillset we already have. If we draft a RB, it needs to be one that can take the 20 carries a game for the times we actually do that.


Are we convinced Montgomery is staying at RB? With Cobb being ineffective, Adams needing a new contract, and Nelson aging, it wouldn't surprise me to see the FO double dip RB's to get Montgomery back in a WR role to provide insurance.

Having said that, I don't think we will double dip. Drafting one, and grabbing one as a UDFA seems to be the likely route with many talented players surely to be available.


I'd be pretty disappointed of he went back to WR.

I'm hoping Randall can just stay healthy here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 3142
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TT has 8 picks so how doe she use them:

Definite - starters are Randall and Gunther/House with Rollins as the nickel. TT needs a starter quality CB so that means drafting in top 2 rounds likely. TT drafts 1 CB because they already have a lot of mid-round value CB's on the roster.

OLB - starters are Perry and Mathews with Fakrell being the #3. The rest of the current roster OLB's are pretty much special teams players. I see this position as one where TT likely will draft 2 OLB's (or Edge Players).

DL - starters are Clark, Daniels, and Guion with Guion in trouble again. Jeans-Francois and Lowry are good players and I don't know much about Price or Ringo. TT drafts 1 DE/DT.

RB - ahh yes RB what does TT do. Starters are Montgomery and Rip with Michaels a quality backup. Is that enough I think not. Teh question is where will that RB be drafted - I say around rounds 4 or 5 but I really have no feel.

At this point TT has drafted 5 players -

OL - starters are Bulaga, Bak, Taylor, Linsley, and either Lucas Patrick or Don Barclay. Spriggs and Murphy are tackles so guard is a huge need. Scary thin right now isn't it. TT drafts 2 OL and likely a Center and a guard.

! remaining draft choice left so what will it be - my guess is either a safety or an ILB. No WR's drafted, no TE's drafted and no QB drafted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group